Do native English speakers have an equivalent of Engrish?

[Sleeper]

Specifically, do native English speakers have any sounds they have difficulty distinguishing in the same way that Asian speakers have difficulty distinguishing R and L?

Are there other examples in other languages?

About 9 years ago I read about some published work about brain scans of native speakers of Chinese, and how their brains didn't seem to react to R and L sounds the same way English speakers' brains do. It was probably this, or something like it:

The infant’s innate neural circuitry allows her brain to be able to recognise any phoneme. However, after less than a year in a certain linguistic environment, the child becomes increasingly able to differentiate only those phonemes she typically hears in her language and begins to lose the ability to perceive other phonemes.3,4 For example, individuals who have spent their first decade hearing Asian languages in which the phonemes r and L are interchangeable, are unable to differentiate those sounds.5 Positron emission tomography (PET) scans have shown that the r and L sounds are decoded in separate parts of the brain of an English speaking person, but these sounds are processed in the same part of the brain of someone in whose native language these phonemes are not differentiated.6

http://adc.bmj.com/content/88/8/651.1.full

What sounds are we likely to be unable to distinguish?

[goofy]

What sounds are we likely to be unable to distinguish?

Lots. For instance I have trouble distinguishing between the alveolar and dental nasals of Malayalam, the post-alveolar and alveopalatal fricatives of Polish, the retroflex and alveopalatal fricatives of Mandarin, some of the clicks of Xhosa, the tones of Cantonese.

[gmalivuk]

What sounds are we likely to be unable to distinguish?

Any sounds that are allophones in English. Aspirated versus unaspirated [p], [t], and [k], for example, aren't perceived as different sounds in English, but are in many other languages. Some languages additionally have a retroflex set of consonants (t, d, and n) which are pronounced farther back in the mouth than the "normal" English versions. These language have 4 distinct /t/ and /d/ sounds, in other words, which can change the meaning of a word. The Arabic sounds that get transliterated as <k> and <q> are supposed to be different, and yet most English speakers begin "Kuwait" and "Qatar" with the same sound. Tones in all the languages that have tones are really difficult for English speakers to hear and say correctly, at least at first.

[eSOANEM]

Most English speakers will struggle to distinguish between dental and alveolar stops and many will struggle to distinguish bilabial, labiodontal and dental fricatives.

Additionally, people find it quite hard to distinguish vowels they don't hear from ones they do. Most native English speakers I know who haven't specifically trained their ability to distinguish phones will generally hear [a] as either [æ] or [ɑ] and, as we don't have [ʌ] in my dialect, I struggle to distinguish it from [ɐ]. Also, I believe research has shown that most Spanish speakers cannot distinguish [i] from [ɪ] because, despite Spanish having both, the two are not different phonemes.

Furthermore, I generally struggle to distinguish close central vowels from either their front/back counterpart or a schwa depending on the exact location of the vowel.

[goofy]

Any sounds that are allophones in English. Aspirated versus unaspirated [p], [t], and [k], for example, aren't perceived as different sounds in English, but are in many other languages.

I think we can tell the difference between voiceless aspirated and voiceless unaspirated stops. I can tell the difference between the [tʰ] of "tan" and the [t] of "stan". What we have trouble with is the difference between voiceless unaspirated stops and voiced stops. So the /t/ in "stan" and the /d/ in "dan" sound the same. (In fact I'm not sure there is a difference between these sounds, since initial /d/ in English is often phonetically voiceless.) Or the voiceless unaspirated and voiced stops in Hindi or Thai.

Most English speakers will struggle to distinguish between dental and alveolar stops and many will struggle to distinguish bilabial, labiodontal and dental fricatives.

But English has labiodental and dental fricatives: /f/ and /v/ vs /θ/ and /ð/.

[gmalivuk]

(In fact I'm not sure there is a difference between these sounds.)

There is, because even when neither is aspirated we can hear the difference between "east man" and "eased man".

Most English speakers will struggle to distinguish between dental and alveolar stops and many will struggle to distinguish bilabial, labiodontal and dental fricatives.

But English has labiodental and dental fricatives: /f/ and /v/ vs /θ/ and /ð/.

Yeah, in most dialects an inability to produce that difference is perceived as a speech impediment.

[goofy]

(In fact I'm not sure there is a difference between these sounds.)

There is, because even when neither is aspirated we can hear the difference between "east man" and "eased man".

I meant that there is no difference specifically between initial /d/ and the /t/ of initial /st/. The phonemic distinction is neutralized in this environment.

Word-finally, the preceding vowel length communicates the difference imo. For instance in "sat" and "sad" the difference is communicated mainly through the difference in vowel lengths. Also in your examples there's a difference in the voicing of the fricatives. We can pronounce them with a distinct voiceless stop and a voiced stop, of course. But we don't have to.

[gmalivuk]

Well sure, but then we don't *have* to pronounce a great many /t/s as such in the first place. Many of them can be replaced with glottal stops with no significant loss of comprehensibility.

[goofy]

I don't mean glottal stops. I mean that in normal speech, I'm not sure that there is a real phonetic difference between the final phones of "sat" and "sad" or "east" and "eased".

[eSOANEM]

Any sounds that are allophones in English. Aspirated versus unaspirated [p], [t], and [k], for example, aren't perceived as different sounds in English, but are in many other languages.

I think we can tell the difference between voiceless aspirated and voiceless unaspirated stops. I can tell the difference between the [tʰ] of "tan" and the [t] of "stan". What we have trouble with is the difference between voiceless unaspirated stops and voiced stops. So the /t/ in "stan" and the /d/ in "dan" sound the same.

I dunno. It was only when I was learning a conlang which didn't have aspiration that I realised their was any difference.

But English has labiodental and dental fricatives: /f/ and /v/ vs /θ/ and /ð/.

Yes, in every standard dialect I know however there are many people who do not make such a distinction in their speech (I usedn't to), and struggle to hear the difference.

Yeah, in most dialects an inability to produce that difference is perceived as a speech impediment.

True. In my experience it is more common than most though (hence the many). With that example I wasn't intending to speak about English speakers in general

[gmalivuk]

I don't mean glottal stops.

I know, but my point was that a lot of word-final /t/s can be pronounced as glottal stops and people mostly don't even notice, and yet we clearly perceive a difference between [t] and [ʔ] in other places, meaning there is a clear phonetic difference between the two.

I mean that in normal speech, I'm not sure that there is a real phonetic difference between the final phones of "sat" and "sad"

And I'm sure that there is.

[bgege]

I am a Hungarian living in highly international environment, and can offer some examples of confusion based on personal experience. (forgive me for not using IPA)

-Native Dutch speakers have problems with the v/f distinction (and I would expect Germans to have the same problem as well). Interestingly, this extends to writing as well, seeing facebook posts like "I forgot to safe my document, and Word crashed..." is relatively common, it is simply one sound in the mind of our colleagues. They don't really say one sound either, I had Dutch speakers repeat "vogel" to me five times, and it didnt have one consistent pronounciation, it was sometimes v, sometimes f, while she swore she said the exact same thing again and again. It is also possible that they say something in-between the two sounds, and our minds simply dump it into either of the categories. I think this is the closes to the classic "Engrish" mix-up.

-Hungarians don't really hear the v/w difference, and I can only pronounce it if I pay extreme attention. "Where" is "vere" to me

-Finnish has very few words (mostly loanwords) with the letter z. It took me the better part of a Voice over IP class at university to realize that "chiro" means 0 for example. Younger Finns who grew up on English language, subtitled TV have far less problems with it.

-Spanish v/b mixes as well, and they have trouble hearing the difference as well, having to write down a name with b in it upon hearing it, results in b or v with a fifty-fifty chance.

-Trying to pronounce vowels that the only the other language has is an endless source of pub-fun. Hungarian "a" or "o" are highly alien to foreigners, and watching someone trying to warp there mouth around a brand new-vowel is hilarious. Same with the soft k in Thai, like in khaa.

[Derek]

I mean that in normal speech, I'm not sure that there is a real phonetic difference between the final phones of "sat" and "sad" or "east" and "eased".

Although the exact pronunciations vary, in all standard English dialects there is a distinct difference between those pairs. For me, "sat" has a glottal-reinforced t, and "eased" ends with /zd/, compared with /st/ in "east".

But English has labiodental and dental fricatives: /f/ and /v/ vs /θ/ and /ð/.

Yes, in every standard dialect I know however there are many people who do not make such a distinction in their speech (I usedn't to), and struggle to hear the difference.

Yeah, in most dialects an inability to produce that difference is perceived as a speech impediment.

True. In my experience it is more common than most though (hence the many). With that example I wasn't intending to speak about English speakers in general

I think its more likely that those people don't speak a "standard" dialect (ex, General American, RP) in the first place. I mean really, speaking a "standard" dialect is more unusual than not. But in all the American dialects I'm familiar, dental fricatives and labiodental fricatives are distinct, with the exception of AAVE, where they sometimes merge (the dental fricatives will also merge with the alveolar stops in some environments). From what I've heard on random Youtube videos, this merger is more common in Britain.

[goofy]

I mean that in normal speech, I'm not sure that there is a real phonetic difference between the final phones of "sat" and "sad" or "east" and "eased".

Although the exact pronunciations vary, in all standard English dialects there is a distinct difference between those pairs. For me, "sat" has a glottal-reinforced t, and "eased" ends with /zd/, compared with /st/ in "east".

In my speech the difference is largely in the vowel length. With "eased", the fricative starts out voiced but ends voiceless. That could just be my dialect, or even just me, I don't know.

Here's a hypotheses: take words ending in /d/, like "side", "sad", "sued", "seed", and replaced the last consonant with the /t/ from recordings of "site", "sat", "suit", "seet". Will people still hear the words as "side", "sad", "sued", "seed" because of the vowel length?

[poxic]

In my speech the difference is largely in the vowel length. With "eased", the fricative starts out voiced but ends voiceless. That could just be my dialect, or even just me, I don't know.

I hadn't noticed the difference in vowel length before. Interesting. I do feel a difference in the final consonant, though I don't know how audible it is: "east" ends with the tip of the tongue going straight to contact with the palate; "eased' has the mid-tongue going to the palate first, then the tip.

[gmalivuk]

Yeah, vowel length definitely changes between voiced and voiceless endings. But it also sometimes changes independent of that, such as with hide (the verb) and hide (the noun). So (for me, at least) the vowel is the same in hide (v) as it is in height, but I still perceive a difference in the final sound.

[goofy]

hide (the verb) and hide (the noun).

Do you pronounce these differently?

When I say hide and height, I hear a difference in the final stop, but I'm not sure how much of that is real and how much is interference from the vowel length.

[gmalivuk]

hide (the verb) and hide (the noun).

Do you pronounce these differently?

Yes. I even started a thread about it, but had forgotten (until rereading it just now) that it actually seems to be a minority dialect feature.

[Makri]

Native Dutch speakers have problems with the v/f distinction (and I would expect Germans to have the same problem as well)

No, we don't. German has both phonemes.

Gmalivuk, I'm puzzled - which language has four kinds of t or d or n or r?

[Angua]

My Indian friend said his language had those so he'd never both teaching us how to say anything.

There's definitely a different between the last phonemes in sat and sad when I say it. Like poxic's explanation.

[Makri]

I won't believe that a language has a four-way distinction unless somebody actually names the language (better yet, the language and the phonemes). I wouldn't even know what the fourth besides dental, alveolar and retroflex should be. I'm not talking about secondary articulation, of course, that doesn't count (although I'd still like to see one that has the 3 distinctions + some secondary articulation, just out of interest, but not because I'd think it completely unbelievable).

[Angua]

I think it was Marathi. I could be wrong, and gmalivuk is referencing something completely different. Anyway, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages#Phonology

[goofy]

Gmalivuk, I'm puzzled - which language has four kinds of t or d or n or r?

Hindi has a 4-way stop contrast (voiceless, voiceless aspirated, voiced, and voiced aspirated or murmured) at 5 points of articulation (bilabial, dental, post-alveolar or retroflex, palato-alveolar, and velar). It also has nasals at all five points of articulation. It also has 3 kinds of R (alveolar, retroflex, and murmured retroflex). Marathi contrasts voiced and murmured continuants /m/, /n/, /ʋ/, /l/, /r/.

[gmalivuk]

I was thinking Sanskrit in particular, but any number of modern languages descended from it still keep both the aspirated/unaspirated and alveolar/retroflex distinctions and thus also have all four /t/ and /d/ sounds, along with two /n/ sounds.

[Makri]

Oh, well, it was aspiration you meant. I was thinking place of articulation all the time. Having read gmalivuk's post again, I don't even know why; it should have been pretty clear that aspiration was taken into account. That's why I was shocked, because I have never even seen a language that distinguished dental, alveolar and retroflex in all or even most manners of articulation.

[Iulus Cofield]

I have heard of an East African language that distinguished between dental and alveolar stops, but not also any other coronal stops, in a phonology textbook I have. But I'm not sure where my book is, so I can't look up the language's name.

[goofy]

Oh, well, it was aspiration you meant. I was thinking place of articulation all the time. Having read gmalivuk's post again, I don't even know why; it should have been pretty clear that aspiration was taken into account. That's why I was shocked, because I have never even seen a language that distinguished dental, alveolar and retroflex in all or even most manners of articulation.

Malayalam contrasts bilabial, dental, alveolar, retroflex, palatal and velar nasals, and Wangurri and Yanuyuwa have similar contrasts.

[Makri]

Wow, Yanuyuwa is... well, should I say "cool" or "insane"? They actually have a four-way contrast, and with multiple manners of articulation even. Thanks for the reference!

[goofy]

Wow, Yanuyuwa is... well, should I say "cool" or "insane"? They actually have a four-way contrast, and with multiple manners of articulation even. Thanks for the reference!

You're welcome! I'm curious though... What do you mean by four-way contrast? Yanuyuwa has a seven-way contrast in terms of place.

[Makri]

I mean, intuitively, in the t-department. Dentals, alveolars, retroflexes and palatoalveolars are all t's in a way that labials and palatals and velars are clearly not t's (but rather p's, c's and k's).

[YttriumOx]

Native Dutch speakers have problems with the v/f distinction (and I would expect Germans to have the same problem as well)

No, we don't. German has both phonemes.

The problem is more in how native English speakers hear it. The Dutch and German v/f/w sounds are quite different to English. So, native English speakers often hear something "half way between" with these letters and occasionally therefore interpret there as being no difference. The Germanic "v" AND Germanic "f" are both interpreted as being "half way between v and f"; while the Germanic "w" is interpreted as being "half way between v and w". So, the German speaker hears three distinct sounds; whereas the English speaker hears either one or two depending on how well they're listening.

For reference, I'm a native English speaker (Southern New Zealand dialect originally; but now broad international with an accent) living in Germany and I used to live in the Netherlands. English is my mother tongue, with a reasonable level of skill in both German and Dutch (enough to get by in daily life in both).

[Makri]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Please clarify on who exactly hears which phoneme in which language as what (or has trouble distinguishing between which phonemes in which language). Also, all three languages are Germanic, so what does the word do there?

[YttriumOx]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Please clarify on who exactly hears which phoneme in which language as what (or has trouble distinguishing between which phonemes in which language). Also, all three languages are Germanic, so what does the word do there?

Sorry if I was unclear - rereading my original however I'm not sure where your confusion lies. Writing IPA wouldn't help here, because I'm not referring to the actual pronunciation, but instead the interpretation (what one hears). Allow me to try to clarify:
1) German/Dutch person speaks a German/Dutch word with "V":
- German/Dutch listener hears German/Dutch "V".
- English listener hears "something between V and F" (equally like to interpret as "V" or "F")
2) German/Dutch person speaks a German/Dutch word with "F":
- German/Dutch listener hears German/Dutch "F".
- English listener hears "something between V and F" (most likely to interpret as "F", quite likely however to interpret as "V")
3) German/Dutch person speaks a German/Dutch word with "W":
- German/Dutch listener hears German/Dutch "W".
- English listener hears "something between W and V" (most likely to interpret as "V", moderately unlikely to interpret as "W")
In all three cases, if the English listener is not specifically listening for a difference or the words are not used closely together, he may assume he simply heard an English "V".
So, a German says "Ich fahre nach Wien" (I am driving to Vienna) and the English listener hears something like "ik varuh nuk veen".
And a Dutchman says "Ik wil vandaag mijn familie feliciteren" (I want to congratulate my family today) and the English listener hears something like "ik vil vunduch mine vamelya velissiteruh".

There are of course exceptions for many different accents. I've heard German accents where there's a very large difference between the "V" and "F" and no native English speaker would mix them up; and German accents where there's so little difference that no German would be able to tell the difference either (other than from the context of the word of course); and indeed with a greater number of Dutch accents the "V"/"F" aren't as close (to the English ear) as with German; but these are all exceptions more than the rule.

For Germans and Dutch who speak English, the sound will depend entirely on how they pronounce it. I've generally found that those who speak English very well such as those who use it daily in business will also correctly pronounce the English sounds of "F", "V" and "W" with very little chance of being misunderstood. Those who haven't practiced much since school however are likely to use the German/Dutch pronunciation of the letters, making English speakers hear, "Well, what do you think of the fish vat?" as something like "Vell, vot do you sink of za vish fat?" (the "th"->"s" is of course another matter, but also common)

As for my use of the word "Germanic" I was meaning simply German and Dutch in this context. You're right that English is a Germanic language, but it's a pretty bastardised one so I was (perhaps wrongly) excluding it. It should however have been fairly clear from context I would've hoped.

[Makri]

Ah, thanks, now I see what you mean.

German /ʋ/ (written as <w> or <v>) being perceived as something in between English /w/ and /v/, I can understand; it probably gets worse in the southern varieties, where /ʋ/ has some bilabial allophones. German /f/ (written <f> or <v>) being heard as between English /v/ and /f/ puzzles me, though (except for the varieties that neutralize them, obviously). I'm not aware of any context in which I (being from Vienna) would pronounce /f/ sufficiently voiced for this to make sense, but I don't know what might happen further up north. Where have you had this experience?

[YttriumOx]

I'm not aware of any context in which I (being from Vienna) would pronounce /f/ sufficiently voiced for this to make sense, but I don't know what might happen further up north. Where have you had this experience?

Definitely "further up north" - I live in Hannover (where the locals are proud (but wrong) to say they speak the "most correct high-German"). I find the Austrian and Bavarian accents definitely do make more of a distinction between /f/ and /v/ than around here. The worst I've come across for it though is the Westphalian accent, where I can't hear any difference at all between the two (both are "softly voiced").

[goofy]

1) German/Dutch person speaks a German/Dutch word with "V":
- German/Dutch listener hears German/Dutch "V".
- English listener hears "something between V and F" (equally like to interpret as "V" or "F")

What is a sound that is something between /f/ and /v/? Do you mean a fricative that starts voiced and ends voiceless or vice versa?

[YttriumOx]

What is a sound that is something between /f/ and /v/? Do you mean a fricative that starts voiced and ends voiceless or vice versa?

More or less a "softly voiced" fricative. Also I find that I myself (in English) make a /v/ slightly further back on my lower lip than I make an /f/ and while I haven't stared at other people's lips, I get the feeling that this "inbetween" sound has more of the /v/ lip positioning.

[goofy]

What is a sound that is something between /f/ and /v/? Do you mean a fricative that starts voiced and ends voiceless or vice versa?

More or less a "softly voiced" fricative.

What does that mean in terms of articulation?

[gmalivuk]

I find that I myself (in English) make a /v/ slightly further back on my lower lip than I make an /f/.

I definitely don't do this.

[YttriumOx]

What is a sound that is something between /f/ and /v/? Do you mean a fricative that starts voiced and ends voiceless or vice versa?

More or less a "softly voiced" fricative.

What does that mean in terms of articulation?

I'm not sure I can clarify it much more than I did already sorry... Basically:
Say "Very" - note that you voiced the /v/.
Then say "Ferry" - note that you did not voice the /f/, but it was otherwise either identical or nearly so.
Then finally say it again (with the tooth/lip position the same as /v/ (if it was different between /v/ and /f/)) and produce somewhat less voicing on the initial sound than you do with the /v/ in "Very", but obviously more than the "none at all" that you do with the /f/ in "Ferry".

I'd upload my own voice somewhere, but since I'm at work I think my colleagues would stare at me a bit oddly were I to do so.